Laney v. Gregory
| Decision Date | 19 August 1915 |
| Parties | LANEY v. GREGORY ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Action by R. B. Laney against W. T. Greg ory and N. J. Laney. From denial of a motion for change of venue, heard at chambers in Sumter county before H. F. Rice, Judge, W. T. Gregory appeals. Affirmed.
The following is the order of the court below, herein appealed from:
The above-stated cause came before me at chambers at Sumter, S C., on October 13, 1914, upon a motion of the defendant Gregory to transfer the place of trial of said cause from Lee county to Lancaster county, the place of residence of said Gregory. The defendant last named has not answered, but moved this court for an extension of time in which to prepare and file his answer.
The motion for change of venue is based upon two grounds. The first is, in effect, that R. B. Laney, who brings the suit against Gregory, as the maker, and N. J. Laney, as the indorser, of a certain promissory note of said Gregory to said N. J. Laney, is not the owner of the note sued upon, but that said N. J. Laney, defendant, is the true owner of the same, and that the two said Laneys, who are brothers, have conspired together, and in the form and manner of bringing this suit are seeking, to defeat a good and valid defense which said Gregory has to the suit, by attempting to place said R. B. Laney in the position of a purchaser for value without notice. The second ground is that the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. In his affidavits opposing the change, R. B. Laney vigorously denies the charge of collusion, and again asserts, as in his verified complaint, that he is the owner and holder of said note for value before maturity. N. J. Laney also swears in his affidavit that he, for value received, transferred said note to said R. B. Laney, and that he also indorsed same and guaranteed its payment, and is liable in this suit as indorser.
Upon a consideration of the verified complaint and the affidavits submitted by both parties, it appears to me that for this court to grant the motion upon the first ground made is to determine and give judgment upon, at chambers, out of the county in which the action is brought, and upon affidavits alone, one of the important issues in the case--assuming, of course, that the answer will raise such issue. This court has as much right, at chambers, to adjudge upon affidavits that Gregory owes nothing on said note as it has to determine upon such a showing as is made and at chambers, that R. B Laney is not the owner of the note sued upon. If the answer puts in issue such matters, they should be submitted to a jury for determination, with the evidence before it. But, independent of above observations, when the complaint and all the affidavits are considered, I do not think the motion should be granted on the first ground.
As to the second ground: There is no claim that the change will be more convenient for the witnesses, and under Castles v. Lancaster County, 74 S.C. 512, 55 S.E. 115, this court has no right to change the place of trial on the ground moved for. Neither can I say, upon the showing made, that the ends of justice will be best subserved by the change.
It is therefore ordered that the motion be and hereby is refused and it is further ordered that the defendant Gregory have 10 days from...
To continue reading
Request your trial